Jump to content

karat

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About karat

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Massachusetts, United States
  1. Some people have such very low expectations. This took 7 months to release a total of 28 cards - 6 of which have nothing but HP values on them. So that's 7 months to release 22 functional cards, or about 1/3 of what any of the actual (far more complex) LCGs are getting on a monthly basis. I'm happy we got something new too, but that hardly seems like a level of dedication that justifies pulling out your standard fanboy IToldYouSo! I'm honestly more confused by the release than anything else. Again, it's nice to see them, but it's a very strange way to release upgrades for the game. It was also done with no hype - no previews, no hint that it was coming, just here they are. I can't remember the last time FFG did that with anything. Any what do these packs mean for the future? If there's a real expansion (i.e. one that includes new quests/enemies/locations) coming soon then why release them separately, rather than as part of that? FFG's entire model for their games is based on bundling, why break it up here? And if there isn't anything else coming, as someone asked, why release them at all? So yes, we got something and that's good... but I don't think we can say for sure what this means for the game's future. I actually think this is a negative sign for the game's future. It looks like these were already in development and they were released this way instead of through the larger quest expansion that this game needs. I agree that the lack of hype is a worrying sign -- like they wanted to squeeze out a few more bucks from work they already had done without building up hope for new development. On the other hand, maybe they were always planning on releasing it this way, like Death Angel, and maybe they need more time for a quest expansion. So speculation remains just speculation...
  2. The game is still young. Even if you were a completionist, you would only need 3 core sets (to get 3 copies of each card), 2 pack cycles, and 2 deluxe expansions (tyranids and necrons). Rotation won't matter until several more sets come out, so no worries about that for years. Also, Necrons just came out, but they want access to cards of all factions, so they are tough to start with, as you want a larger card pool with them. Both Star Wars and Conquest are hurting for players right now, so neither is great for the tournament scene. If you want casual play with friends, go with whichever game style you want -- they are quite different, so read some reviews. Also, you can read the rules online on the FFG website. Finally, you can look at cards on cardgamedb.com. If you want my personal take, Star Wars is built using "objective sets" -- sets of cards that all go in your deck together. There are fewer choices for deck construction, but those choices have a lot of impact -- if you want one card, you have to take the entire set. As for gameplay, It is designed for fast play and cycling through cards very quickly. There is a lot of focus on getting initiative (aka "the edge"), which gives huge bonuses in battle to whomever gets it. Otherwise, battles are a lot abut deciding who goes into combat and who gets held in reserve for later. It is also asymmetric -- with one player as the light side and the other as the dark side. The clock favors the dark side, and the pressure is on the light side to complete its goal by then, while the dark side can advance the clock even faster if it does well. Conquest is built by choosing a faction's warlord and one of two possible allied factions (around a wheel). Your deck must have 8 signature cards that go with that specific warlord. The remaining 42 cards can come from loyal (faction-exclusive) cards from your warlord's faction and common cards from your warlord's and your ally's factions. As for gameplay, there is a tradeoff between using units to capture resources and using units for battles. The main victory condition is to capture 3 planets that share the same type, and only the first planet can be captured each round, but you can capture resources or fight battles on later planets too (and have to, if you want cards and resources to pay for them). Alternately, you can kill off the opposing warlord (which does happen) or force your opponent to run out of cards (which almost never happens). So, the main decisions are which units to deploy to which planets, but all units at a planet fight when there is a battle at that planet. Basically, Star Wars is a faster paced game of tactical thinking and simpler deck construction rules, whereas Conquest is more about long-term strategy and more traditional deckbuilding rules (with the addition of the warlord's signature cards).
  3. Back to the original topic: * Even if this is a troll (and not a leak of a mockup), I'm sure FFG employees have noticed the interest and have some cogwheels turning, so it may yet come to pass. (If it is a hoax, I can see employees kicking themselves for not thinking of it. On the other hand, it's a pretty obvious idea given the cancellation of the Call of Cthulhu LCG.) * The fact that Star Wars was originally designed as a co-op meant that FFG was willing to have 2 coop LCGs at the same time. * The announcement of a new game doesn't have to correspond 1-1 with the death of an old one. The number can fluctuate if the market grows or shrinks. Old games can die and new games can be created and eventually an equilibrium can create itself. It just happens to be 5 active games right now, with another (L5R) announced for 2017. The number could go up to 7 (or it could shrink again to 5 -- see my next point). * Star Wars and Conquest are the least well-off of the games. LotR is doing well. Unless they did not have the option of renewing the license, I don't see them discontinuing LotR. At worst, I'd see them slow things down to let people catch up. Personally, I think coops need a slower release cycle than a tournament game. Star Wars and Conquest are the ones that look to be in the most danger. * The death of CoC left a space for fans of the IP. While a coop is not the same as a versus game, FFG does think heavily in terms of IPs, so it makes sense to have another LCG in the Arkham Horror universe. * A strong market for LotR could indicate that there is space for 2 coops -- reinforced by the fact that Star Wars was originally going to be a coop. * In short, I don't think LotR will be cancelled anytime soon, unless FFG fails to have a choice in the matter. * In short, even if this is a hoax, I think a coop Arkham Horror card game is an excellent idea.
  4. It made me think of the Bible as well, especially since it basically starts with Genesis and consists of tales of early days of creation.
  5. Sure. "All valid and required targets must be available in order to initiate the effect" can easily coexist with,"Once initiated, do as much of the effect as possible" because choosing the target is part of the initiation process, not part of resolving the effect. (RRG, p. 8-9, step 5 vs. step 6). Whether or not the historical basis for including "if able" in the template is still viable or applicable is a whole other conversation. However, the original question of whether "if able" creates an all-or-nothing effect out of Consumption seems to be answered by the "do as much as you can" rule. The question remains whether we think that answer should be run past FFG for verification. Without "if able", I would agree that the all-or-nothing rule takes effect. At the same time, "if able" is not defined for Conquest, and there is precedent for "if able" to override that in other LCGs. (Though you could adopt the opinion that, since it is not defined, that it does nothing.) In this case, there are two cases of "each" -- each player and each planet. There does seem to be a useage of "if able" with "each" that effectively treats each player and/or planet as a separate instantiation. However, there doesn't seem to be a point to this in a "do as much as you can" ruleset, since that's the default interpretation anyway. I strongly suspect that "if able" does not do anything and should just be deleted. It is unnecessary at best interpretation and wrong at the worst interpretation. I think the card's intended interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of "do as much as you can" when "if able" is removed. The question is what does "if able" mean in this ruleset?
  6. Historically, the "all or nothing" rule that "if able" was meant to override in AGoT (which serves as the basis for the Star Wars and Conquest rule sets...), was the rule stating that all specified targets must be present/available in order to trigger an ability. So, for example, an ability that said, "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ" requires 1 ready unit to be available in each player's HQ before the effect can be trigger - otherwise, you are missing valid targets for the effect - but "Action: Exhaust a target ready unit in each player's HQ, if able" could be triggered no matter how many players had ready units in their HQ. The rule for, "if the effect doesn't change the game state, you cannot trigger the ability" is a relatively late comer to AGoT-based rule sets, but the "all valid targets must be available in order to trigger the ability" was there almost from the beginning. The historical point, though, is that "if able" originally overrode an "all or nothing" rule in favor of "as much as possible" game play, not the other way around. It is arguable whether or not the rule for, "If there is no valid target for a targeting effect, the ability cannot be initiated." (RRG, p. 15) is made redundant by the "effect must change the game state" and "do as much as you can" rules. I would guess that "if able" persists, at least in part, because of this. There are 3 issues here: 1) How "each" works in combination with validity. For example, "each player does Y" can be interpreted as a series of instructions for each player X, "X does Y" where "X does Y" is evaluated independently for each player as valid or not or it can be interpreted as "All players do Y" whose validity can be evaluated as a single atomic unit. 2) Target validity. That's the targeting requirements you discussed. 3) Non-target validity. In cases like "discard 2 cards" the cards are not targets, so the targeting rules don't apply. I think 1) could have been handled more elegantly by using "each player" as shorthand for a separate instruction for each player and "all players" to mean an atomic instruction. I am getting the impression that, in a system with a "all targets must be valid" rule, the default interpretation is an atomic instruction unless "if able" appears. I'm not sure if "if able" interacts much with 2) outside of the presence of an "each" term. However, 3) is a completely different case. In games with "as much as possible", "if able" can turn that to "all or nothing". In short "if able" affects 1/2 in rulesets with "all targets must be valid" in one way and affects 3 in rulesets with "do as much as possible" in the opposite way. I'm not sure "if able" makes sense for 1/2 in rulesets with "do as much as possible", but this is the original case under discussion. In a "do as much as possible" ruleset, it would be perfectly clear *without* "if able." The presence of "if able" just confuses the issue. Also, can "all targets must be valid" coexist with "do as much as possible" in some way I'm not thinking?
  7. Unrevealed planets are not even planets, so not part of "each planet" (RRG p12). I did not notice that. I have learned something -- admittedly tangential to the original topic -- but I have learned something.
  8. I thought the intention of "if able" was to override the "as much as possible" rule to an "all or nothing" rule. If not, I agree with you that it would serve no purpose. There is also the "Do X, if able. Then, do Y" construct that only does Y if X happens, but I think that was a poor choice of wording. Then again, I don't know of a game with similar complexity that doesn't have these issues.
  9. Call of Cthulhu also has the "all or nothing" interpretation of "if able". I could call AGoT the odd-one-out due to being the first, so it is stuck with earlier interpretations, but I consider that largely irrelevant, just like I consider the Netrunner exclusion largely irrelevant since they didn't just import all card text verbatim. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the intention is for it to affect people without units at all planets (particularly without units at the unrevealed planets). Finally, given that we're appealing to 3 other games, it is worth addressing in this one. (If there were a definition of "if able" in this game, I wouldn't need to refer to other games.)
  10. I will disagree with you because the term "if able" means to do the whole thing or do nothing. Okay, to be fair, this is based on their other LCGs, as the RRG doesn't define "if able" that I can tell. It is possible that "if able" works *differently* here than in the other LCGs. However, my point is that I'm not pulling this out of nowhere.
  11. "Deploy Action: Each player must sacrifice a unit at each planet, if able. " My literal interpretation of this card would be that if a player doesn't have at least one unit at each planet, then that player is immune to this card, since I believe that's how "if able" works -- the player can't sacrifice a unit at each planet and so does nothing. However, "each" and "if able" seem to interact oddly in the LCGs. I suspect the intent was: For each player X, for each planet Y, (Player X must sacrifice a unit at planet Y, if able). Any comments?
  12. Thank you. You answered my question with your second post, but not with your first post. A logic tree does count as an answer -- and a fine one at that. This is an example of a replacement effect that negates the sacrifice.
  13. Actually, I'm more interested in the definition of Sacrifice. What we know in the rules is "A character that is sacrificed is also placed in the discard pile." I haven't found a more complete definition in the Rules or FAQ. So, what I meant to be asking is if the card ends up out of play but not in the discard pile (or who knows in the case of sacrificing something other than a character), is it still considered sacrificed for the purpose of paying costs? (And I know that if the paying of costs is prevented, then the effect doesn't happen, but does this form of interference negate the paying of the cost, or is it good enough as long as it left play?) Do we have any examples of anything else that would interfere with a sacrifice in a similar way? If so, then we can draw some inferences.
  14. I think you are searching the top 5 cards of your deck, not searching the deck, so you wouldn't shuffle, as these two things are different, even though they both involve the words search and deck.
  15. So, I read the article on the upcoming set, and I'm curious how the passive effect of resilient interacts with paying costs. For example, if you have to sacrifice a resilient card (as a cost), wouldn't using resilient to put it on top of your deck negate the paying of the cost? In other words, if you use the resilient ability, was the card still sacrificed? What about other, similar interactions?
×
×
  • Create New...